On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I don't understand why we are doing that "Fedora.NEXT"
thing in the
first place. It's a lot of change for the sake of change, without any
idea whether the output will be better than the status quo, or even
whether there will be any (usable) output at all!
For what my opinion is worth (as someone who's been around since the
RHL4.1 days) I have to agree. I've paid close attention to this ongoing
saga, ad while the old development and governence model had its warts,
it did seem to work consistently for Fedora's stated foundational
goals (Freedom, Friends, Features, First)
So far the only tangible result is that the release date for F21 is
delayed (which is probably a good thing) Everything else seems to be
"It's Fedora, just totally different and not Fedora any more."
The main "feature" I've seen requested is an intermediate-cadence
support cycle between RHEL/clones' 5-year and Fedora's 1ish-year, but
nobody (especially not those asking for it) seems willing/able to do the
work to provide that support on the (nontrivial!) distro-level scale.
(I remember all too well the Fedora Legacy folks' pleading for help..)
A longer release cadence means we lose the 'First' goal (both in the
First-to-market and Upstream-First sense), and the main beneficiary
seems to be those who think the 'Freedom' goal only applies to
themselves, not their downstream users.
Anyway. I'll shut back up, but I would really hate to see Fedora's
unique (and IMO successful) model get thrown out. It really is a matter
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Delray Beach, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.